Rush Gaming, would-be Worcester slots operator, hit with fines

Wednesday

Apr 3, 2013 at 6:00 AMApr 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM

By Thomas Caywood TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

The Chicago casino-operating company seeking a state license to build a slots parlor in the Canal District has been fined $483,000 for violations of gambling laws in Pennsylvania and Illinois, according to regulators in those states.

Rush Street Gaming LLC's two Pennsylvania casinos, in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, have been fined a dozen times by state gambling regulators for violations ranging from failing to prevent a 15-year-old boy from gambling for an hour to installing slot machines that had not been tested and certified by the state.

The fines imposed by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board during the last three years total $458,000, with the largest single fine being a $105,000 penalty issued in February 2011 for seven instances of allowing underage patrons to gamble at the Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh.

The disciplinary records show that, in another instance, a 14-year-old boy was able to enter the Pittsburgh casino and play a slot machine for several minutes in December 2009.

A spokeswoman from Rush Street's public relations firm provided a brief written statement in response to questions from the Telegram & Gazette about the fines

“We take all of our regulatory obligations very seriously, which is why we voluntarily self-reported each incident at the casinos. At Rush Street Gaming we pride ourselves on implementing and adopting best industry practices in compliance across our properties,” wrote Justine Griffin, a senior vice president at Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications in Boston.

Rush Street is seeking the lone Massachusetts slots parlor license to build a $200 million gambling emporium with 1,250 slot machines on the Wyman-Gordon property on Madison Street. Company officials said last week the 120,000-square foot building would also house two restaurants, a food court, a bar and possibly a day spa.

A local opponent of the Worcester slots plan, Edward L. Moynihan, owner of a constable business in the city, said the fines in Pennsylvania and Illinois suggest that Rush Street has a track record of gambling law violations.

“It's up to them to ensure they don't serve underage people. Absolutely it's on them. This is just one of many issues that I think are going to come out on why this is such a bad fit for Worcester,” Mr. Moynihan said. He is seeking to organize opposition to the slots plan before it goes to city voters in a binding referendum this summer or fall.

In addition to underage patrons, Pennsylvania regulators also fined Rivers Casino and Rush Street's SugarHouse Casino in Philadelphia several times for allowing people with gambling problems, who signed up for the state's self-exclusion list, to enter and gamble at the casinos.

The fines for underage and excluded patrons at Rush Street's two casinos in Pennsylvania represent about 20 percent of the $1.7 million in total fines for those offenses issued by Pennsylvania gambling regulators at all casinos statewide, according to state Gaming Control Board figures.

There are 11 casinos in Pennsylvania including several located at horse racing tracks. Rush Street opened Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh in 2009 and the SugarHouse Casino in Philadelphia in 2010.

Meanwhile, gambling regulators in Illinois fined Rush Street's Rivers Casino in Des Plaines $25,000 in March 2012 for several instances of marketing to people on that state's self-exclusion list for problem gamblers.

The Illinois casino, which opened in 2011, was found to have issued Rush Rewards cards, authorized a credit card advance of $600 and sent marketing materials to people on the list. The Illinois Gaming Board's legal complaint against the casino found it had violated a state law prohibiting a gambling license holder from “engaging in conduct that would discredit or tend to discredit the Illinois gaming industry or the state of Illinois.”

Illinois regulators who investigated the violations found that in one case a casino employee noticed that a person applying for a Rush Rewards card had the same first name, middle name and date of birth as a person on the self-excluded list. The employee brought the issue to the attention of a supervisor, who instructed the employee to issue the card because the last name did not match, according to the complaint.